AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) sought approval from the Water Quality Control Commission (the Commission) for the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for the Upper Rio Grande Watershed to submit to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Following a public notice and comment period, NMED petitioned the Commission for approval. The Commission, referencing a nonprecedential opinion, questioned whether TMDLs should be treated as regulations under the Water Quality Act (WQA), ultimately denying NMED's petition for failing to follow rulemaking procedures (paras 2-7).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioner-Appellant (NMED): Argued that a TMDL is a planning document rather than a rule or regulation under New Mexico’s Water Quality Act, based on recent legislative clarification, and sought the Commission's approval to submit the TMDL to the EPA (paras 1, 3).
• Respondent-Appellee (Water Quality Control Commission): Denied NMED's petition, concluding it did not constitute a petition for regulatory change nor comply with the requirements for proposed rulemaking before the Commission. The Commission based its decision on a nonprecedential opinion that treated TMDLs as regulations under the WQA (paras 1, 4-7).

Legal Issues

• Whether the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for the Upper Rio Grande Watershed constitutes a regulation under New Mexico’s Water Quality Act, requiring adherence to rulemaking procedures for its approval.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals dismissed NMED’s appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, concluding that TMDLs are not regulations under the WQA and, therefore, the Legislature has not authorized a direct appeal under these circumstances (para 12).

Reasons

• The Court, led by Judge Kristina Bogardus with concurrence from Judges J. Miles Hanisee and Jane B. Yohalem, determined that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal based on legislative clarification that TMDLs are planning documents, not regulations under the WQA. This conclusion was supported by the recent legislative definition of TMDLs as planning documents intended to guide actions to meet water quality standards, rather than enforceable rules or regulations. The Court emphasized that its review was limited to cases with express legislative authorization for direct appeal, which was not present in this case. The decision also referenced federal case law supporting the characterization of TMDLs as informational tools rather than regulatory mandates (paras 8-12).